WHO SNOPES SNOPES? or WHY SNOPES IS WRONG ABOUT OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE I have used Snopes to check on crazy claims many times. I have found that they are quite reliable more often than not. However, I believe they are wrong at times. I have no doubt that thousands, perhaps millions, believe Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate is genuine because of this article by Snopes. snopes/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp So why are they wrong? Snopes asserts “birthers immediately claimed that the long form birth certificate was also a forgery.” This is wrong. The first ones to call the LFBC a forgery was photoshoppers. These people were able to analyze the properties / attributes of an electronic pdf file that is Obama’s birth certificate on the White House website. They were not birthers. Alex Jones discusses them, and has an editor show the problems: https://youtube/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk 10:28 Here is another photoshopper showing problems. https://wwwhttps://youtube/watch?v=S40WKxKSlHc&feature=youtu.be.youtube/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY 7:48 Both videos were posted the day the LFBC was put on the whitehouse.gov website. Thousands of photoshoppers examined and concluded the LFBC is a forgery. These folks ranged from self described novices, too amateurs, to people that made a living with graphics software. Snopes claims that three primary problems with the LFBC was some anachronisms, this is false. Only number 1 is a problem, the BC should show negro instead of African. Many problems exist that have not been addressed by this article. Several can be seen in Joe Arpaio’s second press conference: https://youtube/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA 1:15:38 Next, Snopes uses an expert to show OCR can explain the problems in the BC. One problem with that is the expert says he never verified the authenticity of Obama’s LFBC. https://citizenwells.wordpress/tag/jean-claude-tremblay-did-not-authenticate-obama-birth-certificate/ The next problem with OCR is the second expert Snopes uses completely discredits OCR. John Woodman in the video part 2 at 5:35, explains OCR was never used on the LFBC. That cannot explain the problems. So Snopes even contradicts themselves with the experts they use. It is true OCR creates layers, but OCR was never used in the LFBC, you can dismiss this claim completely. No need for it to even be in the article. The next four videos, John Woodman shows the major problems the photoshoppers pointed to, such as layers, the Ann Dunham Obama signature, the white halos, and identical elements occurring. His explanation is the pdf was originally a scanned image that was optimized. He asserts an automated software process of optimization causes the anomalies. Mr. Woodman comes short in testing his theory. His argument stays at the level of conjecture. You can see that scanning a document and running optimization creates a document very different then what is at whitehouse.gov. Optimization creates many random layers. It does not differentiate between text and the green safety paper background. The results are very different from what the LFBC actually looks like. These next two videos shows how a scanned LFBC looks and how Obama’s LFBC actually is. https://youtube/watch?v=ID_KfcmG9gs&feature=youtu.be 1:37 https://youtube/watch?v=S40WKxKSlHc&feature=youtu.be 2:28 This next video shows how optimization works on the LFBC. https://youtube/watch?v=GDY7Pbh9dOk 4:53 Here is another test of optimization. This next video also shows OCR, optimization, and problems with the Ann Dunham Obama signature. https://youtube/watch?v=nW_PWzhgvDs 12:00 My opinion is Snopes gets a big FALSE on this article!!! To share this, click on the photo. You can share on the next page.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:22:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015